Recap, August 5, 2024: When Do Something Becomes Do Better

Another session, another controversial vote. I voted yes on the shopping cart ordinance and amendments to the two existing ordinances. For those disappointed, angry, or at a loss as to why I would vote that way, I'd like to detail the process a bit more than I could after 6 and a half hours.

I’ve been racking my brain over these ordinances for the last few weeks, asking nearly everyone who crosses my path what they think of these changes for Las Cruces, from the staff at Mesilla Valley Hospital to downtown store owners, from the administrations at La Clinica and Jardin de Los Niños to regular people I’d run into or ask out for coffee. Reactions would vary: confusion, dismissal, support, or fear.

I agreed with the main fears, especially about the impact on the unhoused and whether this was the best use of City resources. For the latter, the City already uses its resources and staff time to pick up carts that are not used but left around town. Citizens pay for this with the work that City employees – from staff in Parks & Recreation or officers from LCPD – already do. 

The main goal of the shopping cart ordinance is for businesses to oversee the carts themselves. When this first came up, I worried about smaller stores like Fiesta Foods and Savemart implementing this. However, Savemart’s owner was a go early on, and he also spoke on Monday; plus, smaller stores can file for an exemption. (I have noticed that Fiesta on Main has more staff clearing out the cart corrals regularly, and as far as I understand it, Walmart also recently hired a company to pick up their carts.)

I also worried, and continue to worry, about the fining and jailing of those experiencing homelessness with the possession of a cart. 

Frankly, I feel that LCPD should not spearhead this type of outreach in the long term but should transition into another agency(ies) with its support. I can see how encounters with the police can create more trauma, but I can also see that LCPD is on the front lines of managing something it wasn't necessarily built to do, much like LCFD and its expansion with Project LIGHT. Like I said on Monday, we work within our imperfect systems to the best of our abilities.

Criminalizing those with carts is not the goal of either LCPD or the City’s Attorney, and the businesses are instructed not to approach those with carts either. CLC Attorney Brad Douglas, per email, explained, 

“The City Attorney’s Office will soon be taking over all prosecutions in the Las Cruces Municipal Court. I will be giving my attorneys a directive not to pursue any monetary fines against the indigent (besides being arguably cruel, it defeats the purpose of what we are trying to do regarding assisting those in need of help/rehabilitation). Instead, the goal is to redirect appropriate persons into treatment services, as needed and when appropriate. The New Mexico Supreme Court has recently given guidance on community service in lieu of fines. Encouragingly, the Court has also gone on to state that a Defendant may satisfy his/her community service obligations through treatment programs like mental health counseling and/or treatment for substance use disorder(s).”

[Side note 1: Like Mayor Pro Tem, I also saw how the Municipal Code references a court amnesty program specifically suggested to be done by the City Council per ordinance. In 2022, the City Council forgave $3.5 million from the Municipal Court over four years. We can also do a modification of this.]

In working through this in conversations with Chief Story, I referenced the same ProPublica article from which Mayor Pro Tem read.

It was precisely the same fear I had, too. Chief Story has a plan about storage if needed [also offering a substitute bag if possible] with a shipping container and asked Community of Hope if they’d like to house it. I hear they’re not interested in managing it, so he said it would be housed at LCPD, which is not ideal. 

I also wanted accountability and reporting on outcomes for those LCPD/action group encounters. 

Chief Story and I quibbled about this a bit. He didn’t want it to be too prescriptive. I wanted to know that we are connecting people to help. He’ll bring back a report in six months; we can likely specify what we would like success to look like, barring any violations of concrete identification: A percentage that engaged? Were they connected to specific services? What needs are we missing that we can accomplish as a City?

This will not be a patrol officer engaging with someone possessing a cart. This will be project-based and should include Project LIGHT and outreach from specialized services. [Is that you? Reach out; let’s do this together. I had a social worker email me with ideas, and I replied, would you be willing to work with LCPD? I’m not sure if she knows how serious I am.] 

As Mesilla Valley Community of Hope’s Nicole Martinez expressed, we need creative solutions. I would be happy to work with her to find more of those. For example(s): Might an overdose prevention center be an aid to problems we’re facing? Can Las Cruces be a pilot program for tiny houses? Can we provide financial incentives for social workers who commit to working in Las Cruces, much like the City Utilities internship for its water techs? (City Utilities asks them to commit to several years of working with the City.)

[Side note 2: The resolution to spend 300k, in part, to expand Community of Hope's outreach ability, should reach the council by the end of August. There's an incoming expansion of Project LIGHT, too, with a supervisor/case manager. I wanted to see if we could expand staff, but as I mentioned before, Chief Smith explained that slow, targeted growth would be better.]

It’s also correct that we need more housing. I hope Las Cruces zoning changes will allow for more housing. For example, property owners could add accessory dwelling units (aka mother-in-law units) on existing property. We’d also like the community's support in building multi-family homes in different areas, and need to make sure that new zoning doesn’t tie our hands with more permitting.

Because that’s where it sometimes gets hard. My desire for tiny homes? Problematic with state regulations.

Our state legislators are working on things like this, and with us. Leveraging funding sources will be critical because the millions it would take to build affordable housing, provide robust mental healthcare resources, and rehab from substance abuse will all take money that the City does not have—but the state does. That said, I don’t envy our legislators, who are asked to fund the great needs that exist for different areas of their communities. 

Again, it’s an imperfect system, with root causes that will take decades to fix at the state and federal levels. But what does “work” look like for me at the local level?

It looks like petitioning for a group that would like to start an overdose prevention center to present at a work session. (Which, spoiler, should be on the schedule for October.) 

It looks like asking the City Manager and Mayor how to maybe turn the old armory that housed migrants into a dorm-style shelter, or supporting another working shelter in town. Along with that, I reached out to the Community of Hope for some historical info about their shelters, and while they used to have this for families, their mandate is that housing is the goal. 

Yes, as it should be, but a safe spot to sleep should be, too, much like we have cooling stations during the day.

An influx of those experiencing homelessness — likely many from California, where encampments have been taken down — may arrive here soon, and we should prepare to welcome them the best we can. We can do it with global neighbors, then we can do it for our local ones.

Apologies; this was heavy on shopping carts and not on medians. I’ll do a speed run here:

Can people still panhandle at certain locations? Yes. 

Are officers going to go after someone leaning into the lane to receive money? No. 

Will officers reach out to those panhandling in the highway off-ramps? Yes.

Straight to jail? No.

Lastly, I'm not going to tell you to trust us; in fact, I'd like to see you hold us accountable in case this doesn't work. That’s our job, to do things and to do better if it’s not working. Are we adding to trauma? Are outcomes for people encountered not what we’d like? Is the diversion court working for this, if it is even needed? 

The Council should be held accountable to its people, those housed and unhoused. 

###